It is not safe to elect Romney

[EdwinWillers]

Don't get me wrong, I'm not here to sing Romney's praises. But I can at least give the guy his due. For example, he helped a lot of businesses get started while in Bain Capital. He did a good job running the Olympics. He did a good job getting Massachusetts out of financial trouble. I think he can lead, manage, and, most importantly, has the experience to get the economy moving again.

Agreed. And similar to - or in contrast to the current president, it should be noted that he helped a lot of businesses get started too - 37 of which (so far) have gone bankrupt, many of those never even crossing the line to produce the [green] products which their money from Obama was intended.

Obama's never run a business himself though - in fact, he thinks of his time in the corporate world as working with the enemy.

Obama's never gotten anyone out of financial trouble - although he's helped a lot of people be happy IN their financial troubles, prolonging their financial troubles with "perks" to make their financial troubles (and Obama) seem more palatable.

Obama's not a manager of people, and certainly not a leader of people - a fact these past 4 years have demonstrated repeatedly and clearly.

And finally, the only "experience" Obama has with respect to the economy is how to prolong a bad one and how to make it infinitely worse.

That's Obama's due.

Irrespective of anything else - I agree, it's time we gave Romney his due... and that we give him a chance to ply his skills and experience in these areas. He certainly couldn't do any worse that Obama (no one could). And given he's the only other option - the choice seems patently clear.

 

[GuardianShua]

All of the economist are agreed that Romney's tax plan will not work. What about that?

 

[GuardianShua]

MAJOR ROMNEY EMBARASSMENT: Mormons won't even endorse him

Tucson Citizen - ‎10 hours ago‎

Today the Salt Lake Tribune endorsed the President saying that he deserved a second term but Mitt Romney didn't deserve a first.

 

[Jeffwhosoever]

All of the economist are agreed that Romney's tax plan will not work. What about that?

"While the debate over tax reform has been consumed with distributional issues, the economy continues to limp along in the worst recovery since the Great Depression. To be sure, this economy faces headwinds that even an ideal tax code will not address, but pro-growth tax reform can provide substantial benefits. Our results indicate that by lowering tax rates on investment and labor, the Romney tax plan would grow the economy by 7.4 percent, the capital stock by almost 19 percent, wages by almost 5 percent, and hours worked by 3 percent. The benefits would be widely enjoyed, as every income group would experience at least a 7 percent increase in after-tax income. It would benefit the federal budget as well, in that fully 60 percent of the static revenue loss from Romney’s plan would be recovered from taxing a larger economy."

Source: Simulating the Economic Effects of Romney's Tax Plan | Tax Foundation

 

[USincognito]

Granted. But when you run on fundamental principles, and change them mid campaign, it's called political expediency.

Romney is a pancake.

Yes, in a way it is, but is that entirely a bad thing? The activists in the Democratic and Republican parties tend to be idealogues, but the vast majority of voters - independant but leaning either direction - aren't. Gov. Romney has adapted to his changing electorate as Mass. gubinatorial candidate, Republican presidential candidate in the primaries and Republican presidential candidate in the general. Pres. Obama has done the same and that tradition extends back at least a generation. Again, I stand by my assertion that there's nothing wrong with that and that governance will change many of the positions and policies those running for president will assert.

I agree. As I said in other post recently, most politicians say what they think will get them elected. And it doesn't matter what they say anyway -- it matters what they *do*. We've seen what Obama has done (no need to reiterate his failures here). And we've seen what Romney has done. Regardless of what either of them *say*, I'd pick the one with the better track record.

What track record? The one where Gov. Romney left Mass. in not as great a shape as he found it in or the Salt Lake Olympics that he saved with large amounts of federal funding - or the one where Pres. Obama has left America in slightly better shape than he found it based on economic trends that would happened without his "leadership" and wasting a lot of time and political capital on "Obamacare" when he could have focused more on budgeting and spending that might actually have effected the economy since Presidents really don't have that much influence?

Neither of them were, are or will be the CEO of America inc. To think so is folly.

You mean like:
Fox news (flip flop! flip flop! - YouTube

Fox news has had a "rock ribbed", "stand your ground", "first principles", etc. narrative for quite some time, but it was Kerry's "for it before I was against" it meme that stuck. I don't know at what point changing your mind as new information comes to light is a bad thing.

 

[Thekla]

Still some problems with the analysis: how did they get 7.4% growth, and did they factor the EZ stall (our major trading partner, and heavily tied into US financial sector), the Fed, etc. into the equation ? So, for example, what markets are healthy enough to assist our growth to this extent ?

Romney allies have offered several estimates. John Diamond, an economist at Rice University in Houston, wrote that Romney’s plan would increase GDP by 5.4 percent by the end of a decade, compared with current projections. Rosen said 3 percent would be a “reasonable” estimate. Entin and the Tax Foundation projected a 7.4 percent increase after a five to 10-year adjustment period.

Those studies have some limits, including the fact that they don’t have a detailed plan from Romney to consider. The Tax Foundation’s initial study didn’t include any of the economic drag caused by the limits on deductions.
Romney’s Rates Seen Spurring Growth Too Little Too Late - Businessweek

In addition, Romney's plan (like his Massachusetts tenure) increases expenses and risk at the local/municipal by hitting the muni-bond market:
Analysis: Presidential tax plans could bruise municipal bond market | Reuters

 

[Jeffwhosoever]

You do have to throw out Obamanomics to turn things around, so I can see what it is hard to envision growth since we've been stuck for 4 years, but Reagan did it, in his first term, no less. No use to throw good money after bad money, like Obama's green energy fiascoes.

Create economic growth, and cities may not need loans. They'll have a much larger tax base and have surpluses again, which will increase their credit rating to be competitive even if the worst case interpretation of Romney's tax plan does indeed cause any issues for municipalities (for which I'm skeptical).

 

[pgp_protector]

Well in about a year it should be over (for about 1-2 years)
Except for the loosing side complaining about how the Election was stolen from them.


Then we get to start this whole fun game over again

 

[Thekla]

I just ran across this (searching for articles on tax plans). And I do think there's some truth to this -- the next president is inheriting an economy that was first stabilized and is now recovering from a disastrous free-fall.

The EZ crisis is sucking about 1% from what our GDP would be -- ie, I still have yet to hear anything from Romney on the EZ crisis, and how he could possibly produce growth against a global downturn. Or how he would guarantee that the tax cuts would end up in stateside investment -- instead of investing globally, for example in the EZ firesale.

It looks like the economy is finally rebounding, with household balance sheets improving and the housing market growing stronger. The next president seems likely to preside over at least a modest recovery. So Romney would not only be able to cut taxes on the wealthy, but he would also be able to attribute any economic improvement to his tax cuts. Supply-side fiscal policy would be redeemed, and Romney donors -- many of whom are quite certain that the key to economic growth is cutting their own taxes -- would rejoice. However, too big and too rapid a contraction of federal spending would put that ideological victory in jeopardy -- along with the seats of some Republican legislators in the next midterm election.Marco Rubio Exposes Mitt Romney’s Plans - Bloomberg

 

[Jeffwhosoever]

I just ran across this (searching for articles on tax plans). And I do think there's some truth to this -- the next president is inheriting an economy that was first stabilized and is now recovering from a disastrous free-fall.

The EZ crisis is sucking about 1% from what our GDP would be -- ie, I still have yet to hear anything from Romney on the EZ crisis, and how he could possibly produce growth against a global downturn. Or how he would guarantee that the tax cuts would end up in stateside investment -- instead of investing globally, for example in the EZ firesale.

You quoted a terribly biased/misleading article. The title "Marco Rubio Exposes..." falls apart when you read the article, and all Marco said was:

"How about it, Marco Rubio? The Republican senator from Florida, perhaps the party's biggest rising star, was asked more than once at a meeting at Bloomberg View this week to name loopholes he would close. Unsurprisingly, he declined. "

 

[Gxg (G²)]

I just ran across this (searching for articles on tax plans). And I do think there's some truth to this -- the next president is inheriting an economy that was first stabilized and is now recovering from a disastrous free-fall.
.

Sadly, many don't see it that way...and have recently threatened to do some serious damage should the president get re-elected. More specifically, the Greene County Republican Committee in Virginia got the nation’s attention with a column calling for an “armed revolution” if President Barack Obama is re-elected in November. The column was written by the newsletter’s editor, Ponch McPhee, in which he says that ”[W]e shall not have any coarse [sic] but armed revolution should we fail with the power of the vote in November. This Republic cannot survive for 4 more years underneath this political socialist ideologue.”

In addition to encouraging other conservatives to show up at the polls, the newsletter goes on to describe President Obama as one of the most destructive leaders in American history. Obama is describe as an “ideologue unlike anything world history has ever witnessed or recognized.” The newsletter distances itself from the Republican Party by stating that it does ”not reflect the opinion of the Republican Party whole or in part.” Earlier in the year, the editor of the newsletter ,Christopher Hecker, was charged with a felony for threatening to kill the president and other officials, as well as bomb landmarks along the east coast.


You can read the entire newsletter by clicking here.



For more:

• The Call for Armed Revolution and the Role of Religion - Open Salon
• Is this true? Virginia Republicans Call for Armed Revolution if. Obama is Re-Elected..

 

[Jeffwhosoever]

Sadly, many don't see it that way...and have recently threatened to do some serious damage should the president get re-elected. More specifically, the Greene County Republican Committee in Virginia got the nation’s attention with a column calling for an “armed revolution” if President Barack Obama is re-elected in November. The column was written by the newsletter’s editor, Ponch McPhee, in which he says that ”[W]e shall not have any coarse [sic] but armed revolution should we fail with the power of the vote in November. This Republic cannot survive for 4 more years underneath this political socialist ideologue.”

In addition to encouraging other conservatives to show up at the polls, the newsletter goes on to describe President Obama as one of the most destructive leaders in American history. Obama is describe as an “ideologue unlike anything world history has ever witnessed or recognized.” The newsletter distances itself from the Republican Party by stating that it does ”not reflect the opinion of the Republican Party whole or in part.” Earlier in the year, the editor of the newsletter ,Christopher Hecker, was charged with a felony for threatening to kill the president and other officials, as well as bomb landmarks along the east coast.


You can read the entire newsletter by clicking here.



For more:

• The Call for Armed Revolution and the Role of Religion - Open Salon
• Is this true? Virginia Republicans Call for Armed Revolution if. Obama is Re-Elected..

And the Democrats are now backing Romney's economic plans and his foreign policies?

By the way, the people in this forum who said they would riot if their candidate lost were Democrats.

 

[Thekla]

You do have to throw out Obamanomics to turn things around, so I can see what it is hard to envision growth since we've been stuck for 4 years, but Reagan did it, in his first term, no less. No use to throw good money after bad money, like Obama's green energy fiascoes.

There were two factors that need to be considered re: Reagan -
1. we were in a deliberately created recession because of runaway inflation. Recovering from a created recession is much easier than recovering from a systemic contraction. Recall the article I posted by K. Rogoff (economic advisor to John McCain) - compared to other systemic crises, the US recovery from this one is "positively brisk". Ie, our recovery is beating records for systemic crisis. Unemployment and workforce participation is lagging, but there are key factors to consider: a) there are a huge numbers of available jobs unfilled because Americans don't have the skillset to fill them (ie, we need a focus on continuing ed.) and b) baby boomers are retiring at the pace of 10,000 a month, leaving a higher percentage of the pop. not participating but also not spending as much (demand drag). The EZ crisis also presents a demand drag, and has a downward effect on US GDP - add 1% to US GDP to account for the EZ drag in order to get a better sense of what GDP would be.

2. Reagan engaged in military Keynesianism -- ie, he pumped the economy through the military industrial sector, which also exploded the deficit.

Create economic growth, and cities may not need loans. They'll have a much larger tax base and have surpluses again, which will increase their credit rating to be competitive even if the worst case interpretation of Romney's tax plan does indeed cause any issues for municipalities (for which I'm skeptical).

Cities will always need to float bonds for schools, infrastructure, etc. Remember, these are not only for maintenance but for expansion to accommodate business and population expansion. Industry needs infrastructure; tax revenue comes after the expansion and maintenance.


I'm still looking for analysis, but here's both campaign's plan (open to full page, R's on next page):
Obama Economic Plan Explained - Business Insider

 

[Jeffwhosoever]

There were two factors that need to be considered re: Reagan -
1. we were in a deliberately created recession because of runaway inflation. Recovering from a created recession is much easier than recovering from a systemic contraction. Recall the article I posted by K. Rogoff (economic advisor to John McCain) - compared to other systemic crises, the US recovery from this one is "positively brisk". Ie, our recovery is beating records for systemic crisis. Unemployment and workforce participation is lagging, but there are key factors to consider: a) there are a huge numbers of available jobs unfilled because Americans don't have the skillset to fill them (ie, we need a focus on continuing ed.) and b) baby boomers are retiring at the pace of 10,000 a month, leaving a higher percentage of the pop. not participating but also not spending as much (demand drag). The EZ crisis also presents a demand drag, and has a downward effect on US GDP - add 1% to US GDP to account for the EZ drag in order to get a better sense of what GDP would be.

2. Reagan engaged in military Keynesianism -- ie, he pumped the economy through the military industrial sector, which also exploded the deficit.



Cities will always need to float bonds for schools, infrastructure, etc. Remember, these are not only for maintenance but for expansion to accommodate business and population expansion. Industry needs infrastructure; tax revenue comes after the expansion and maintenance.


I'm still looking for analysis, but here's both campaign's plan (open to full page, R's on next page):
Obama Economic Plan Explained - Business Insider

I'll take a look, but Obama has a record to examine, and it isn't good. Fortunately, as my signature demonstrates, Americans favor Romney over Obama on economic issues.

 

[Jeffwhosoever]

Well, when an analysis of Obama starts with a gross mistake, it is hard to take the rest of the analysis as credible. Did you read this?

"The cornerstone of Obama's plan for deficit reduction is make people who make over $1 million per year pay a federal income tax rate of at least 30% — the so-called "Buffet Rule," named after billionaire investor Warren Buffett, who supports the proposal. "

Obama's plan is to increase taxes on families earning $250,000 or more a year, not on those "who make over $1 million per year". Biden said the same thing in the VP debate. Does anyone in the Obama Administration communicate?

Later on they do state that families earning less than $250,000 will get a tax break, but the article is silent on what happens to those making $250,000 to $999,999. Very deceptive, indeed.

 

[Thekla]

Since I tend to read econ blogs, here are some reviews/comparisons (I haven't read any comparisons yet, as my focus was on what is happening now, and researching the candidate I was considering voting for):

These two use a similar template for completely opposite results
The economy: Asking the experts | The Economist
The Economists Get It - By James Carter - The Corner - National Review Online

I couldn't find any more comparisons, so to follow will be analysis of the Obama plan:
This one is huge, and detailed -
An Analysis of the Obama Jobs Plan

Here's a simpler comparison:
Obama vs. Romney: Economy - NationalJournal.com

And though no-one is talking about it, and Bernanke's term is up in 2014 iirc,
here's on Glenn Hubbard, Romney's economic advisor:
Robert Scheer: Meet Romney’s Economic Hit Man - Robert Scheer's Columns - Truthdig

(I don't usually read this site, but the info jives with what I've read elsewhere which is why I went ahead and linked it.)

 

[Thekla]

Since I tend to read econ blogs, here are some reviews/comparisons (I haven't read any comparisons yet, as my focus was on what is happening now, and researching the candidate I was considering voting for):

These two use a similar template for completely opposite results
The economy: Asking the experts | The Economist
The Economists Get It - By James Carter - The Corner - National Review Online

I couldn't find any more comparisons, so to follow will be analysis of the Obama plan:
This one is huge, and detailed -
An Analysis of the Obama Jobs Plan

Here's a simpler comparison:
Obama vs. Romney: Economy - NationalJournal.com

And though no-one is talking about it, and Bernanke's term is up in 2014 iirc,
here's on Glenn Hubbard, Romney's economic advisor:
Robert Scheer: Meet Romney’s Economic Hit Man - Robert Scheer's Columns - Truthdig

(I don't usually read this site, but the info jives with what I've read elsewhere which is why I went ahead and linked it.)

 

[SimplyMe]

If Romney did such a good job in MA, why do you think he's losing by such wide margins there ?

He's losing by such large margins because Massachusetts has a huge Democratic majority. My question, if Romney was such a terrible governor, why is he polling in Massachusetts about 10 points better than McCain did four years ago?

MA has had several Republican governors; this one (R) is deeply unpopular there. In sum, Romney did okay in some regards there, but overwhelmingly not okay.

Not to mention, he had all records of his MA and Olympic tenure destroyed. This may be okay in business, but it is debased in governance.




His leadership style in MA was to act as a CEO.
Yes, he can manage -- but what is his core outlook that he will lead us to ?
His record so far has been to angle and take advantage of others -- including the govt. wallet.
Who will benefit from his outlook in "getting the economy moving" ? Look at his record -- throughout his history, who is he looking to serve ?

I also think it is hard to consider Romney's record in Massachusetts without realizing that the Democrats had a veto proof majority. How much do you blame Republicans for Obama's failures -- yet Obama has not ever had to worry about anything of his being vetoed. In fact, part of the time Republican's have not had the votes to stop anything Obama could get the Democratic Congress to support.

 

[SimplyMe]

MAJOR ROMNEY EMBARASSMENT: Mormons won't even endorse him

Tucson Citizen - ‎10 hours ago‎

Today the Salt Lake Tribune endorsed the President saying that he deserved a second term but Mitt Romney didn't deserve a first.

Sorry, the Salt Lake Tribune does not represent Mormons. Instead, they market themselves as being "Utah's Independent Voice Since 1871" (runs on the masthead), essentially meaning they adopt different opinions than the Utah Mormon majority.

The newspaper that is tied to the Mormon church in Salt Lake is the Deseret News, which does not endorse presidential candidates. But the fact is, Mormons (from everything I've see) overwhelmingly favor Romney.

 

[Desk trauma]

...the fact is, Mormons (from everything I've see) overwhelmingly favor Romney.

I am no fan of the LDS church, shocking I know, but I really must hand it to the leadership for being very clear that Gov. Romney is not the churches candidate and that political diversity exists within the church.

I could not picture other Christian groups, evangelicals especially, putting out similar statements if one of theirs was on the ballot.